Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop€¦ · Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey on April 17-19, 2006. The

New Jersey Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop

Proceedings

Endangered and Nongame Species Program

Division of Fish and Wildlife New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

April 17-19, 2006

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Focal Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Recommended Conservation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Information Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Appendices

I. Workshop Agenda and Speaker Handouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

II. Conservation Status and Information Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

III. Threats Assessment Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

IV. Recommended Conservation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

V. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

VI. Species Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program Conservation Impact New Jersey Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop April 17-19, 2006 1

Executive Summary The Endangered and Nongame Species Program, within the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Fish and Wildlife, convened the New Jersey Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey on April 17-19, 2006. The purpose of the workshop was to develop the knowledge base necessary to guide the state’s marine endangered resource conservation and management programs by identifying which species the state should focus on and what actions it should take to conserve them. Marine experts from 13 agencies and organizations around the region participated in the workshop, which was facilitated by Conservation Impact. Sixteen species of marine mammals and sea turtles were identified by participants as the focal species for the workshop – those species for which New Jersey could have an impact on their conservation. Species that were eliminated from further consideration were found to spend most or all of their time outside of New Jersey waters with limited or unknown impacts by New Jersey-based threats and many are currently managed by federal agencies. Thirty-nine categories of threats, ranging from fishing gear of many types to sounds and epizootics were evaluated for their impact on the focal species in New Jersey waters. The highest ranking threats across all species were gillnets, epizootics, recreational boat strike, construction, fixed gear traps and pots, and persistent marine debris. The principal immediate conservation actions, including research, recommended by the participants were to Develop a comprehensive fisheries characterization report for the state Gather the life history and ecology information that is lacking for most species Develop outreach programs to inform, educate, and encourage conservation-

oriented behavior in various target audiences that currently have a negative impact Enforce existing laws and regulations to protect species and their habitats.

New Jersey has a great opportunity to turn these recommended actions into conservation. Through collaboration with neighboring states; with funding assistance from federal and state programs, and others; and by implementing a focused action plan, New Jersey could quickly establish an effective marine endangered resource conservation program.


Acknowledgements The Endangered and Nongame Species Program, within the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Fish and Wildlife, would like to thank the many participants, organizers, and funders of the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop. Dr. Carol Slocum was instrumental in bringing the workshop to Richard Stockton College of New Jersey and college staff helped keep the event running smoothly. Terry Terry provided much needed assistance with facility, hotel and food arrangements. Bob Schoelkopf of the Marine Mammal Stranding Center contributed mammal and turtle stranding data for NJ species. The Northeast Region Stranding Network, through the National Marine Fisheries Service, contributed mammal stranding data for the region. More than 20 professionals from outside the Department of Environmental Protection contributed two to three days of their time, a well as their extensive expertise, to help the Department frame the work that needs to be done in New Jersey for the conservation of marine mammals and sea turtles. Funding was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, and Cape May County Park and Zoo.


New Jersey Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop Endangered and Nongame Species Program Division of Fish and Wildlife New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection April 17-19, 2006 Background New Jersey’s coastal marine and estuarine ecosystems provide habitat for a broad diversity of marine mammals and sea turtles during some period of their life cycles. Shoreline and near-shore recreational, development, and commercial activities, as well as water quality, can affect the health and habitat of those species. Several other species are found only in the deeper waters of the Atlantic where they can be affected by shipping traffic and fishing activities that originate or terminate in New Jersey. The conservation status of many of these species is of concern, with one quarter of the cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and all of the sea turtles listed as endangered or threatened by the federal government and the State of New Jersey. The four pinnipeds (seals) that occur in the state, although not listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, are protected, along with other marine mammals, by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Unfortunately, little is known about the ecology and conservation status of most of these species while they are in New Jersey waters and which threats are of greatest concern. Without this knowledge, managing for healthy populations is difficult and conservation and management efforts may not effectively protect them. As a first step toward developing a conservation program for the state’s marine mammals and sea turtles, the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Endangered and Nongame Species Program signed a Section 6 agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2004. Under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, this agreement establishes the cooperative efforts of NMFS and New Jersey for the conservation and management of resident endangered, threatened, candidate, and recently delisted species. In addition, New Jersey may apply for federal funding for implementation. Knowledge of current status, threats, and conservation needs is


necessary to develop and implement an effective conservation strategy that will guide research and management programs to address those threats and conservation needs. Marine species are also included in the New Jersey Wildlife Action Plan that was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in August, 2005. This statewide plan identifies the species of conservation concern in the state, important habitats for their conservation, and the threats to their populations. It also identifies the need for additional information on many marine species if they are to be adequately protected while in New Jersey waters. The results of this Workshop will help to fill those information gaps. Workshop The Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop was held on April 17-19, 2006, on the campus of the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Pomona, New Jersey. The workshop’s purpose was to develop the knowledge base necessary to guide the state’s marine endangered resource conservation and management programs by identifying which species the state should focus on and what actions it should take. Regional overviews of research, monitoring, and conservation actions for marine mammals and sea turtles were provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service (Appendix I). Participating experts identified the current state of knowledge on conservation status and needs, threats, and information gaps for 16 focal species. On the final day, a smaller group developed recommendations for priority conservation and research projects and proposed action steps for implementation. The 27 participants represented 13 agencies and organizations from the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions (Appendix V). This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the workshop. Detailed work products from the workshop are included in the appendices. Please refer to them for a more detailed treatment of the topics summarized here. Results Principal outcomes from the meeting were the identification of marine mammal and sea turtle species for which New Jersey could take effective conservation or management action, the most significant threats to those species while in New Jersey waters or where they may be affected by New Jersey-based influences, and the most important action


steps to improve their conservation status. Major information gaps that hamper effective action on their behalf were also identified. Focal Species. Identifying the focal species for the workshop set the framework for the meeting. Focal species were selected from an initial list of potential species proposed by the Endangered and Nongame Species Program. Selection of the focal set was based upon whether a species could benefit from conservation and management by the State of New Jersey. Participants met in three taxonomic groups (cetaceans, pinnipeds, and turtles) to determine which species met those criteria and which did not (Appendix II). They also evaluated the current status of the focal species, identified the desired future condition for each species, and noted conservation or management information gaps (Appendix II). Eight species of cetaceans, four pinnipeds, and four turtles were selected as the suite of focal species for the workshop (Table 1). Species that were eliminated from further consideration were found to spend most or all of their time outside of New Jersey waters with limited or unknown impacts by New Jersey-based threats, and were currently managed by federal agencies. Threats. Thirty-nine threat categories were identified across all species, including various types of fishing gear, encounters with ships and boats, epizootics, chemical pollution and debris, noises, habitat loss and alteration, and direct killing (Appendix III). Each category was ranked from 0 (not a known threat) to 3 (high threat) for each species. The highest scoring threats when summed across all species were gillnets, epizootics, recreational boat strike, construction, fixed gear traps and pots, and persistent marine debris. The dominant threats to individual species varied across taxonomic groups, as would be expected given their different life histories and occupied habitats. Gillnets, epizootics, recreational boat strikes, and contaminants were the most serious threats to cetaceans. For turtles, catastrophic oil spills, gillnets, and mobile fishing gear such as trawls and dredges ranked highest. The analysis for pinnipeds was coarser, with 13 threat categories receiving equally high rankings, including fishing gear (gillnets and seines), habitat loss and alteration, epizootics, boat and aircraft approaches, and direct killing.


Table 1. Marine mammal and sea turtle focal species. E = endangered, P= peripheral, S= Stable, T=threatened, U=undetermined. (Status ranks from New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Division, http://www.njfishandwildlife.com, accessed May 30, 2006.)

Common Name Scientific Name NJ Status

Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus E Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae E Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis E Long-finned Pilot Whale Globicephala melaena U Short-finned Pilot Whale Globicephala macrorhynchus U Bottlenose Dolphin (coastal) Tursiops truncatus S Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis U Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena U Gray Seal Halichoerus grypus P Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina S Harp Seal Pagophilus groenlandicus P Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata P Kemp’s Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys kempii E Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea E Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta E Green Turtle Chelonia mydas T There was disagreement among the participants about the impact of gillnets on pinnipeds. The pinnipeds group ranked gillnets as one of the highest threats. But the point was made that the available data do not support that high of a ranking for gillnet interactions with pinnipeds in New Jersey waters. The six years (2000-2005) of marine mammal stranding data from the New York, New Jersey, and Delaware representatives of the stranding network, which were provided in aggregate by the National Marine Fisheries Service, noted in the comments field only two pinnipeds stranded in netting, both in New York waters. The 2006 Draft U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2006_draft.pdf, Waring, et. al, 2006) estimates the annual mortality of harbor seals from the Mid-Atlantic Gillnet fishery at 7 (CV 0.77) for 2000-2004, compared to an estimated 925/year from all human-caused mortalities.


http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2006_draft.pdf

Additional information is needed about the impacts of many threats on these species. Specific categories of threats that were most often scored as requiring further study but thought to be of consequence included wind turbines, chronic oil slicks, other contaminants, overharvesting of prey, personal watercraft strikes, and sounds created by military operations. Recommended Conservation Actions. Workshop participants recommended priority conservation actions in four areas: threat abatement, life history/ecology research to inform actions, outreach, and protection/enforcement (Appendix IV). Many of these actions should be developed in collaboration with or informed by similar projects elsewhere in the region (refer to regional overviews in Appendix I). There was also an overarching recommendation to build the capacity and expertise needed to carry out the other recommendations by hiring a marine endangered species conservation and recovery staff person. In response to the high level of threat posed by fishing gear interactions to most of the focal species, developing a comprehensive fisheries characterization report for New Jersey is an important first step to understanding the nature and extent of the threat. The report should cover gillnets, fixed gear (pots and traps), and mobile gear (trawls and dredges). Some of this characterization may already be completed for New Jersey by the ASMFC. With information on the types of gear, how it is used, size, quantity, location, effort, and how much bycatch is taken, a conservation plan can be developed and implemented to reduce bycatch. Conservation strategies will likely include gear modification, policy or regulatory changes, implementing a state-level observer program, and outreach to the fishing industry. Life history and ecology information is needed for most species, including diet, contaminant loads, and epizootic events. Spatial/temporal habitat use information is needed for cetaceans in nearshore and pelagic waters and for pinnipeds at haul out sites and other locations. Ship-based surveys and partnering with whale watch groups for sighting information are needed to provide cetacean habitat use information. A sighting reporting system, with outreach to shoreline users, would help identify seal use areas. Very little is known about sea turtles in New Jersey waters. Observations and captures of them at sea and in nearshore waters should be recorded to build a better understanding of their habitat use.


Outreach to recreationists, homeowners, commercial sightseeing operations, and the sport and commercial fishing industries is an important part of conservation action for all three groups of species. In all cases, the message should educate the target audience about the focal species, encourage conservation-oriented behavior, and seek sighting information. A user-friendly system should be established to receive sightings. Enforcing existing laws and regulations, as well as developing new regulations or policies, would improve protection for most focal species (e.g. protecting haul out sites). Ensuring that species are included in existing planning and permitting processes, as well as in the state’s emergency response plan to oil spills or other environmental catastrophes is also essential. Information Gaps. There are significant gaps in our knowledge of most marine species and this is especially true for the workshop’s focal species. Without this knowledge, it will be difficult to effectively manage and conserve these species. Information on spatial/temporal habitat use patterns, prey use and competition with fishery harvests, population levels and stock affiliation of New Jersey’s populations, and contaminant loads and their impacts is needed for most species. Other information needs have already been mentioned, particularly related to understanding threats so they can be effectively and efficiently abated. Conclusion The State of New Jersey has a significant role to play in the conservation and management of the marine mammals and sea turtles found in its waters or affected by its industries. Developing the capacity necessary to launch a marine species conservation program is the first step to successfully accomplishing the priority conservation actions recommended by workshop participants. Without leadership and follow through, little will be accomplished. Other states in the region are conducting studies and taking conservation actions on behalf of many of the species New Jersey will focus on. Developing New Jersey’s conservation action projects in collaboration with or informed by those of other states and federal agencies will help establish the marine conservation program quickly and effectively.


Developing a comprehensive fishery characterization report would broadly inform conservation strategies and actions for many species. At the same time, establishing surveys for key species would begin to fill the void of information on which species are where off the coast of New Jersey and when they are there. These two projects would substantially increase the ability of the state to take informed and effective action. New Jersey has two new opportunities for funding its marine conservation program. With the signing of a Section 6 agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the state has access to funds it previously could not receive. Implementation funds from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the state’s Wildlife Action Plan can be used to fund marine conservation and research, as well. The results of this workshop provide a focus and a framework for effectively targeting those funds to the most urgent conservation actions for marine mammals and sea turtles.


Appendices

I. Workshop Agenda and Speaker Handouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

II. Conservation Status and Information Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

III. Threats Assessment Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

IV. Recommended Conservation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

V. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

VI. Species Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


Appendix I: Workshop Agenda and Speaker Handouts Monday, April 1 Today’s meeting will run from 12:30 to 5:15. 12:30 Welcome

Dr. Herman J. Saatkamp, Jr., President, Richard Stockton College of NJ Dr. Dennis Weiss, Dean, Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Richard

Stockton College of NJ Dr. Lawrence J. Niles, Chief, Endangered & Nongame Species Program, NJ

Division of Fish and Wildlife 12:45 Overview and purpose of the meeting 1:00 Introductions 1:30 Workshop framework

Dave Jenkins, Principal Zoologist, Endangered and Nongame Species Program, NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife

Amanda Johnson, National Marine Fisheries Service, Right Whale Research Coordinator

Pasquale Scida, National Marine Fisheries Service, NE Regional Office, Endangered Species Coordinator

2:00 Work groups introduction 2:15 Break as we go into work groups 2:15 Work group session #1: Status of focal species -- cetaceans, pinnipeds, turtles

Priority species requiring conservation action Current condition Principal causes of current conditions Desired future conditions

3:45 Work group reports 4:45 Mapping species locational information 5:15 Adjourn


Tuesday, April 18 Today’s meeting will run from 8:30 to 4:00. Networking, coffee, and mapping from 8:00 to 8:30 8:00 Coffee, networking, and mapping 8:30 Overview and outcomes for today 8:45 Work group session #2: Threats assessment and recommended conservation actions 10:30 Break 10:45 Work group session #2, continued 12:30 Lunch (MAY run to 1:30 depending on # of groups to report) 1:15 Work group reports

What are the major sources of threats to these species in New Jersey? What are their impacts on these species in New Jersey? What conservation issues are most important for New Jersey to address? Recommended actions

• Timelines • Budgets • Responsibilities

2:45 Break 3:00 Discussion of reports: what’s missing, commonalities, priorities 4:00 Adjourn Wednesday, April 19 Today’s meeting is an agency work session that will run from 8:30 to 12:00. Networking and coffee from 8:00 to 8:30

8:00 Networking and coffee 8:30 Priority conservation actions and desired outcomes (workshop results) 8:45 Develop project ideas to address priorities (group discussion) 9:15 Work groups develop project details 10:30 Work group reports 11:00 Discussion of projects 11:45 Next steps 12:00 Adjourn


Marine Mammal Regional Overview (focused on right whales) -- Amanda Johnson, National Marine Fisheries Service, Right Whale Research Coordinator, revised 8.1.06 Maine Dept. of Marine Resources Active in gear research and collaborations with the fixed gear fishing industry

• Developing and testing new sinking groundlines • Using mini-loggers (small, almost neutrally buoyant archiving pressure tags) in

the lobster trap/pot fishery to collect data on line behavior underwater under different environmental conditions (sea state, tidal current, depth) and gear configurations

Maintain whale sightings and disentanglement networks Sponsored a Right Whale Foraging Workshop in April 2005 Maine Marine Patrol - enforcement

• Works through Joint Enforcement Agreement with NOAA Fisheries to enforce Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) regulations (the state of Maine has adopted ALWTRP gear modification measures)

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Active in gear research and collaborations with the fixed gear fishing industry

• Groundlines – developing and testing new sinking groundlines • Mini-logger work similar to that being done in Maine • Scale modeling of buoy line configurations – compare, quantify, and investigate

buoy line profiles in a flume tank at Memorial University to assess entanglement risk

Surveillance and Habitat Monitoring Program for North Atlantic Right Whales in Cape Cod Bay (aerial and vessel-based surveys, as well as habitat monitoring that includes plankton tows)

Collaboration with Cornell University’s Bioacoustics Research Program for monitoring right whales through passive acoustics (since 2003 and ongoing) • Assists in the deployment of pop-ups (in-situ devices that detect vocalizing right

whales and store the data for retrieval and analysis after the pop-ups are retrieved) in Cape Cod Bay and southern Jeffreys Ledge

• Assisted Cornell in deployment of two additional real-time acoustic monitoring buoys in Cape Cod Bay to monitor for right whales year-round, in near real-time

Completed gear characterization study


• Detailed information collected about gear types and gear configurations used by Massachusetts fixed gear fishermen through dockside and/or phone interviews

• Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management - funded in 2005 to conduct a similar study of trap/pot and gillnet fisheries

New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Worked with the Riverhead Foundation for Marine Preservation and Research and

NOAA Fisheries to conduct right whale aerial surveys in the NY area (Nov. 1, 2004 to Dec. 31, 2005). All cetacean sightings were recorded.

Recently hired a Marine Endangered Species Coordinator to focus on conservation efforts for marine species in NY

New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Endangered and Nongame Species Program Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Workshop

• Goal is to identify conservation needs and priorities for marine species in NJ and begin the development of a conservation program

South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources Monitoring right whales off the coasts of SC and GA through aerial surveys (Nov.

15, 2004 to April 14, 2005); collaborative effort with Wildlife Trust

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Right Whale Informational Signs for Mariners

• Increase awareness about right whale calving grounds • Inform boaters about right whale regulations and

guidelines • Inform boaters and the public about reporting

entangled right whales • 200 metal signs produced

• Installed at 21 municipal boat ramp facilities and 28 targeted marinas from Amelia Island, GA to Miami, FL

• Signs distributed to project cooperators (GA Dept. of Natural Resources, SC Dept. of Natural Resources, and University of North Carolina, Wilmington)

All final reports for completed projects are available at Right Whale Funding Opportunities, http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/prgrants/index.htm


Sea Turtle Regional Overview – Pasquale Scida, National Marine FService, NE Regional Office, Endangered Species Coordina

isheries tor

Sea Turtle Health Assessment Studies Collecting animals with assistance from fishermen NY and MD in NER. NC in SER.

Disentanglement Response Contracts set up in MA and RI Disentanglement kits Training workshops and response efforts

Stranding Response Coastwide stranding network, with network members in all East Coast states. NMFS provides extra support in states/times with high strandings (e.g., VA spring,

MA cold stun) Atlantic and Gulf Sea Turtle Strategy Gear-based approach to addressing turtle bycatch issues Fishery Characterization – State and Federal Rulemaking, Section 10 permits, etc.

Gear Research – bycatch reduction Scallop Dredges VA pound nets Trawls

NMFS Rulemaking – bycatch reduction See above

Section 7 Evaluate Federal “actions” for their impacts on listed species

• Fisheries • Dredging • Power Generation Facilities • Other

Recovery Planning Identifying and assessing threats Identifying and prioritizing actions Laying out the steps for recovery


Appendix II: Conservation Status and Information Gaps The following tables are the products of participant work groups. They have been edited only for clarification.



Marine Species of Conservation Concern for New Jersey – Turtles

SPECIES CURRENT CONDITION CAUSES DESIRED CONDITION Atlantic Loggerhead

federally threatened state endangered stranding data: 1975 – present: 894

records common in NJ waters population trend: US nesting is

decreasing in-water juveniles population in NJ

unknown in-water population unknown in

Atlantic and Gulf waters

fisheries bycatch vessel strikes nesting habitat loss/degradation in-water habitat loss entanglement

Recovered list and de ed

Atlantic Leatherback

federally endangered state endangered stranding data: 1975 – present: 352

records common in NJ (adults definite,

juvenile probable) Florida nesting population increasing in-water status unknown in NJ,

Atlantic and Gulf

fisheries bycatch entanglement vessel strikes habitat loss/degradation – in-water

only? Ingestion of marine debris

Recovered an listor downlisted

d de ed

SPECIES CURRENT CONDITION CAUSES DESIRED CONDITION Kem fed

75 – present: 89

y juveniles in NJ waters ation

ulation trend unknown in

n NJ (high human

fisheries byc

at loss/degradation ion

of nesting females

requirement of TEDs in Mexico and US shrimp fisheries

p’s Ridley Turtle

erally endangered state endangered stranding data: 19

records primaril Mexican nesting popul

increasing in-water pop

NJ and elsewhere common i

interaction)

atch vessel strikes in-water habit increasing beach-nesting populat shut down of harvest

and eggs

Recovered and delisted or downlisted

Atlantic Green atened )

g

nt in NJ status in NJ is unknown in-water juvenile population status is

unknown

fisheries bycatch

entanglement gradation

ition of harvest and full ggs on

nesting beaches

Recovered and delisted Turtle

federally endangered/thre(treated as endangered state threatened stranding data: 1975 – present: 15

records US nesting population increasin

(Florida) records are few in number but not

rare juvenile only prese

vessel strikes monofilament habitat loss/de disease – fibropapillomatosis prohib

protection of females and e

or downlisted


Marine Species Not of Conservation Concern for New Jersey – Turtles

tic H

ustification: e or NJ actions to contribute to recovery are insignificant. Species: Justification:

Species: Justification:

Species: Atlan awksbill Turtle J Occurrences in NJ rare because NJ is extrem northern extent of range. Potential f



Information Gaps for Species of Concern Species/Group: Sea Turtles Information needed: population status and trends for NJ/Mid-Atlantic Region seasonal distribution and abundance NJ fisheries bycatch information habitat use/foraging areas (near shore vs. off shore vs. within estuary)

analysis of NJ stranding data food habitats, prey availability

ns)

consolidation of species, habitat, and threats information from various sources

pecies/Group:

nformation needed:

Species/Group: Information needed:

detailed

threats (locatioGIS products for above

S I

Marine Species of Conservation Concern for New Jersey – Seals

SPECIES CURRENT CONDITION CAUSES DESIRED CONDITION Harp seals spend little time here

in small numbers, more in recent years

no habitat known so threats more continue surveillance to determine change

mostly offshore

Gray seal increasing inTop priority uses in shore habitat needs

numbers habitat known protection from both disturbance

and habitat loss

same as harbor seals

lower priority

Hooded seal ver dif

y few no habitat known re global

re regional approach

continue surveillance to determine change in numbers

ficult to determine status or priority

threats are mo requires mo

Harbor seals Top priority

increasing in numbers most frequently occurring

only species existing in NJ during breeding period may be increasing because of global

climate change

habitat known and needs protection, both disturbance and habitat destruction

properly identify all haul outs protect haul outs from

human disturbance and other forms of degradation with regulations and education


SPECIES CURRENT CONDITION CA USES DESIRED CONDITION Gra no s

n

are the two priorities

• lack of understanding of local life history, habitat use (especially haul outs ecology) and threats including

ge and influence of

rstanding of needs create a serous threat killing clubbing to death/ drowning

nces in general, y flyovers,

whole lighting on Atlantic Coast wind turbines and sound pollution

tances too short and not distinguished by types of use no protection for haul outs no outreach to help people understand

they exist and need protection insufficient fines for people who are

found to violate existing regulations

y & Harbor Seals

urvey data available for all ies, so only strandings knowspec

no organized haul out site surveys all species doing OK

gray a nd harbor

Applies to both gray and harbor in categories: Two ma

• human disturbance/interaction

Climate Chancontaminates

inadequate unde

repetitive disturbaOctober to May, militarkayakers

ecotourism in general as a threat, but depends on regulations approach dis


SPECIES CURRENT CONDITION CAUSES DESIRED CONDITION

the converging influence of incren increasi

asing ng

eas

es

a

number of people and anumber of animals in the area global climate change in breeding ar

contamination from coastal runoff, pecially in haul outs area drainages

inadequate funding for serious threat ssessment such as contaminants


Marine Species Not of Conservation Concern for New Jersey – Seals

pecies: Justification: Species: Justification: Species: Justification:

S



Information Gaps for Species of Concern – Seals Species/Group: Seals

: identify locations of haul-out sites as well as details regarding each site (# of individuals, species present, timeframe of presence) identify documented and potential threats at haul-out sites

of population in NJ waters characterization of contaminant load

of the above

roup:

:

Species/Group: Information needed: Species/Group: Information needed:

Information needed

estimate

GIS products Species/G Information needed

Marine Species of Conservation Concern for New Jersey – Cetaceans

SPECIES CURRENT CONDITION CAUSES DESIRED CONDITION Fin Whale State and federal endangered.

Migratory through NJ waters. Ship-strike mortality. Historical depletion of population and

slow recovery rate.

Greater understanding of spatial/temporal occurrence, numbers, & threats in NJ waters.

Humpback Whale State and federal endangered. gh NJ waters.

Entanglement in fisheries gear. Ship-strike mortality. Historical depletion of population and

slow recovery rate.


Migratory throu

North Atlantic Right Whale

State and federal endangered. Global population estimated at approx. 300 individuals. Migratory through NJ waters.

Entanglement in fisheries gear. Ship-strike mortality. Historical depletion of population and

slow recovery rate.


“Coastal” Bottlenose Dolphin stock

Listed as depleted by MMPA in 1993, largely as a result of die-off which occurred on US east coast during the 1980’s. NJ waters provide a calving and

nursery area.

Epizootic die-off during the 1980’s. Smaller population units than once

thought (better understanding of stock structure). Bycatch.

More accurate understanding of demography. Optimum sustainable

population level. Greater understanding of

spatial/temporal occurrence, numbers, & threats NJ waters.


SPECIES CURRENT CONDITION CAUSES DESIRED CONDITION Common Dolphin Not depleted under MMPA – stable. Maintain stable

population. Greater understanding of

spatial/temporal occurrence in NJ waters.

Harbor Porpoise Not depleted under MMPA – stable. Ship strike mortality.

ding of

& threats in NJ waters.

Bycatch motality. Maintain stable population. Greater understan

spatial/temporal occurrence, numbers,

Pilot Whale (lofinned & short-

ng-

finned)

occurrence, numbers & aters.

Not depleted under MMPA – stable. Maintain stable population. Greater understanding of

spatial/temporal

threats in NJ w


Marine Species Not of Conservation Concern for New Jersey – Cetaceans

alJustification: No sightings or strandings. Primarily an off-shore species. Species: “Offshore” Bottlenose Dolphin Justification: NJ waters not critical and population suitable.

Species: Sei Whale Justification: Primarily an off-shore species. Species: Sperm Whale Justification: Primarily an off-shore, deep sea species.

’s Beaked Whale ation: Primarily an off-shore, deep sea species.

Species: Blue Wh e

Species: TrueJustific



Information Gaps for Species of Concern – Cetaceans Species/Group: Cetaceans

nformation needed: al occurrence, numbers & threats in NJ waters.

grounds/nurseries/feeding grounds of cetaceans and during what seasons. • what ecogeographical variables (sea surface temperature, bathymetry, etc.) define critical habitats and what is the degree of

of each. s k using NJ waters and what is the total number within the stocks found in NJ waters.

• what are the primary causes of mortality/strandings in NJ waters.

which occur in NJ waters. Assessment of health of individuals within NJ waters.

and how may bycatch be reduced).

I Greater understanding of spatial/tempor

• what areas are preferred migratory corridors/calving

importance • what i the estimated proportion of the stoc

Prey preference in NJ waters. Analysis of genetically distinct stocks within species

Gear research (what gear is used GIS Products of the above


Appendix III: Threats Assessment Matrix

The following table is derived from the compiled products of participant work groups. It has been edited on or cla ication.

ly f rif

y Endangered and Nongame Species Program Conservation Impact y Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop April 17-19, 2006 32

Threats to focal species sorted from highest to lowest grand total across all species. 0=no known threat; 1=thought to be a threat, but more inform

ation is needed; 2=moderate threat; 3=high threat.

SPECIES GILLNETS** EPIZOOTIC RECREATIONAL BOAT STRIKE

CONSTRUC-TION

FIXED GEAR: TRAPS, POTS

PERSIS-TENT MARINE DEBRIS

OVER-HARVEST OF PREY

CATASTRO-PHIC OIL SPILLS

CONTAM-INANTS

MIL Y ITAREXPLO-SIONS

Fin Whale 2 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 Humpback Whale 3 2 2 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 Right Whale 3 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 Bottlenose Dolphin 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 Common Dolphin 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 Harbor Porpoise 3 3 3 1 0 3 2 1 3 2

Cetacean Total 15 13 12 5 9 8 7 2 10 9 Gray Seal 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 Harbor Seal 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 Harp Seal 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 Hooded Seal 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 2

Pinniped Total 12 12 4 12 8 12 12 8 8 8 Green Turtle 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 Hawksbill Turtle 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 Kemp's Ridley Turtle 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 Leatherback Turtle 3 1 3 2 3 1 1 3 2 1 Loggerhead Turtle 3 1 3 2 3 1 1 3 2 1

Turtle Total 12 5 11 10 10 5 5 13 5 6 GRAND TOTAL 39 30 27 27 27 25 24 23 23 23

**See text for discussion of gillnet impacts on pinnipeds.

New JerseNew Jerse

SPECIES MILITARY SOUND

POWER BOATS APPROACH

MOBILE GEAR: TRAWLS SEINES

CHRONIC OIL SLICK (BILGE, RUNNOFF)

CARGO/ BIG SHIP STRIKE

LOSS OF SHALLOW WATER AND COASTAL WETLANDS

RECREA-TIONAL: HOOK & LINE

FIXED POUND NET

POINT SOURCE POLLUTION

PERSONAL WATER CRAFT STRIKES

Fin Whale 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0Humpback Whale 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0Right Whale 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0Bottlenose Dolphin 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1Common Dol phin 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Harbor Porpoise 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Cetacean Total 9 6 3 1 5 9 0 0 2 2 2 Gray Seal 2 3 1 3 0 3 2 2 2 2 1Harbor Seal 2 3 1 3 0 3 2 2 2 2 1Harp Seal 2 3 1 3 0 3 2 2 2 2 1Hooded Seal 2 3 1 3 0 3 2 2 2 2 1

Pinniped Total 8 12 4 12 8 0 12 8 8 8 4 Green Turtle 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1Hawksbill Turtle 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1Kemp's Ridley Turtle 1 0 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2Leatherback Turt le 1 0 3 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 2Loggerhead Turtle 1 0 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Turtle Total 5 0 11 5 5 8 5 8 6 5 8 GRAND TOTAL 22 18 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 14


SPECIES

PASSING BOAT TRAFFIC

MILITARY AIRCRAFT

HELICOP-TERS

LAND APPROACH- HARRASSMENT KILLING

FISHING SHIP STRIKE

WIND TURBINES

MOBILE GEAR: DREDGES

COASTAL DREDGING

Fin Whale 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Humpback Whale 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Right Whale 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bottlenose Dolphin 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Common Dolphin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harbor Porpoise 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Cetacean Total 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0Gray Seal 3 3 3 3 3 0 1 0 1 Harbor Seal 3 3 3 3 3 0 1 0 1 Harp Seal 3 3 3 3 3 0 1 0 1 Hooded Seal 3 3 3 3 3 0 1 0 1

Pinniped Total 12 12 12 12 12 0 4 0 4 Green Turtle 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 Hawksbill Turtle 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Kemp's Ridley Turtle 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 Leatherback Turtle 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 Loggerhead Turtle 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 2

Turtle Total 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 10 6 GRAND TOTAL 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 10 10


SPECIES

COOLING WATER IMPINGE-MENT

UNPOWERED BOATS APPROACH

WHALE WATCH APPROACH LIGHT

ABAN-DONED FISHING GEAR

FIXED WING

LONG-LINE

BENTHIC HABITAT DESTRUC-TION

PASSING SHIPS

Fin Whale 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Humpback Whale 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Right Whale 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bottlenose Dolphin 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Common Dolphin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harbor Porpoise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cetacean Total 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gray Seal 1 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 Harbor Seal 1 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 Harp Seal 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 Hooded Seal 1 2 0 2 0 0 0

Pinniped Total 4 8 0 8 0 6 0 0 0 Green Turtle 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Hawksbill Turtle 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kemp's Ridley Turtle 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 Leatherback Turtle 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 Loggerhead Turtle 0 0 2 0 3 1 2 0 0

Turtle Total 6 0 0 0 7 0 6 5 0 GRAND TOTAL 10 9 8 8 7 6 6 5 0



Appendix IV: Recommended Conservation Actions The following tables are products of participant work groups. They have been edited only for clarification.


Recommended Conservation Actions—Cetaceans

ACTION TIMELINE LEAD RESOURCES Project: Conduct gear characterization for fixed gear fisheries in NJ waters Action: Work with NMFS to design questionnaire to characterize gear

1 year NJ w/ NMFS

Action: Go to fishermen meetings 1 year NJ w/ NMFS

Action: Conduct dockside interviews of fishermen 1 year NJ w NMFS

Action: Design survey and send it out 1 year NJ w/ NMFS

Project: Characterize mortality related to fixed gear fisheries in NJ waters Action: Acquire and review of existing observer database

weeks

ENSP NMFS

Project: Characterize spatial/temporal habitat usage of cetaceans Action: Conduct outreach to whale watch operators to report sightings to ENSP

weeks

ENSP

Action: Create a GIS product and use to identify potential spatial/temporal conflicts with fisheries/boaters/whale watch operators

? Depends on data acquisition

ENSP SWG grants?

Action: Conduct ship-based surveys to collect data on abundance, behavior, and location

years SWG grants?

Recommended Conservation Actions – Cetaceans continued

ACTION TIMELINE LEAD RESOURCES Project: Outreach/Education Action: Work with NMFS, Northeast Regional Office to provide information to fishermen/recreational boaters/whale watch operators regarding regulations and

guidelines

g WG grants?

Action: Also contact merchant mariners about ship strikes

on-goin NJ w/ NMFS S

Project: Enforcement

WG grants?

Action: Identify regulations not currently being enforced and enforce them

? S

Action: Talk to DAG about regulations which eeks SWG grants? could be imposed to reduce human/cetacean conflict

w


Recommended Conservation Actions: Pinnipeds

ACTION TIMELINE LEAD RESOURCES Systematic Census to locate han time and place ( multi-state)

ul out sites

ar

mal

/Stockton/FGW

ommission, Div. i ye

Every year nov-june once/month every

Marine mamstranding

Mosquito cFish and Wildlife,

Protection of haul out sites through outreach and law enforcement – this is a high priority

Same time frame Every Year

DFW/ MMSC//Stockton/ DFW/ Marine Law Enforcement

Boater safety, DFW, Regulation Adminstration

Surveillance of colonies for life history (especially diet) and habitat selection by eals in

Same t

s NJ.

ime frame Every year on different coloni done every 5

Stockton/MMSC/DFW

Investigation of healthy seals and stranded seals to determine diet, contaminant

Sam

loads, general health, parasite load

e time frame 2 years

MMSC/DFW/DFW/ Stockton/

Establish a sighting report system and a system for processing

Year 1 All year/ every year

MMSC/DFW/ Stockton


R

O i siti an nd re ReCa

in n ReGi

acte gill eries What size nets, when fished, how much e nclude information from NMFS observer programs). Use aerial surveys, fishing surveys, etc.

t ire , implementing state-level

reduce bycatch (consider gear modificationsn)

Recommendation 3 Fi

acHow many pots, when fished, how much effort, how much bycatch, (include information from NMFS observer programs)? Use aerial surveys, fishing surveys, etc. Develop a plan based on fisheries characterization (may require regulatory/ legislative action, implementing state-level observer program)

Implement measures to eliminate/reduce bycatch (consider gear modifications)

ecommended Conservation Actions: Sea Turtles These recommendations are not in priority order.

verarching recommendation: Develop capaccovery.

ty for full-time staff po on for marine end gered species conservation a

commendation 1 tastrophic oil spills: Ensure sea turtles adequately/appropriately considered the state’s spill response pla (“oil spill contingency plans”)

commendation 2 llnets: Compile comprehensive fisheries char rization report for NJ

ffort, how much bycatch, (inet fish

Develop a plan based on fisheries characobserver program)

Implement measures to eliminate/Reduce/eliminate use of large mesh (> 7-8 i

erization (may requ regulatory/ legislativ

)

e action

xed gear : Compile comprehensive fisheries char terization report for NJ fisheries


Recommendation 4 Trawls: Compile comprehensive characterization report for NJ (where, when, how much, etc.)

Implement measures to eliminate/reduce bycatch (consider gear modification) Work with NMFS to implement TED’s in NJ

Dhensive characterization report for NJ (where, when, how much, etc.) ased on fisheries characterization (may require regulatory/ legislative action, implementing state-level

observer program)

Rec

Analyze stranding data to determine whether boat strikes are concentrated spatially/ temporally

Ensure sea turtle effects are evaluated during permitting for marine/estuarine/coastal projects (eg. piers, docks, jetties,

Develop a plan based on fisheries characterization (may require regulatory/ legislative action, implementing state-level observer program)

Recommendation 5

redging (fishing): Compile compre

Develop a plan b

Implement measures to eliminate/reduce bycatch (consider gear modification).

ommendation 6 Boat Strikes: Outreach and education (post signs, include in boat licensing training)

Recommendation 7 Construction:

groins) NMFS can provide information to inform staff on issues

USACE in NC Doug Piatowski can also provide guidanc e NMFS comments on federal projects; NJ should review non-federal projects and their cumulative impacts


Critical Information vest of Prey:

Gaps:

I

s as part of a comprehensive Atlantic index study nce studies; 1-2 index sites in New Jersey waters)

S

fisheries characterizations )

Overhar**potentially very serious for loggerheads and Kemp’s Ridley How to get info: Develop and implement multi-state, collaborative diet study; determine harvest limits for species of

importance to turtles (Determine if quotas exist)

ndex studies Develop methodologies for assessing trends and abundance of turtle

(in water abunda

Benthic Habitat Destruction: Look for existing data from other entities (state, academic, etc)

easonal Presence Determine seasonal presence and geographic distribution (may be elucidated by



Appendix V: Participants Brandi Biehl Marine Mammal Stranding Center 609-266-0538 Matt Blake Litto iety [email protected]

ral Soc

Jeanette Bowers-Altman New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection [email protected] Michael Davenport New Jersey Departm nt of Environmental Protection [email protected]

e

Bill Deerr Marine Mammal Stranding Center 6 -0538 Greg Didomenico Garden State Seafood Association [email protected]

09-266

Rob DiGiovanni Riverhead Foundation [email protected] Steve Everett Richard Stockton College of New Jersey [email protected]

Laura Graziano Jenkinson’s Aquarium [email protected] Ashley Hartness Adventure Aquarium

0 x 7367

f Environmental Protection nj.us

856-365-330 Dave Jenkins New Jersey Department [email protected]. Amanda Johnson National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected] Lisa Manning National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected] Nicole Mihnovets New York Department of Environmental Conservation [email protected] Dr. Lawrence Niles New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

.state.nj.usLarry.Niles@dep Jay Pagel Marine Mammal Stranding Center 609-266-0538

[email protected]

Michele Pagel Adventure Aquarium m


Dr. Hubert Paluch Cape May County Zoo [email protected] Todd Pover New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection [email protected] Bob Schoelkopf Marine Mammal Stranding Center [email protected] Barbara SchroederNational Marine Fisheries Service

[email protected]

Pasquale ScidaNational Marine Fisheries Service [email protected] Dr. Carol Slocum Richard Stockton College of New Jersey [email protected] Edna Stetzar Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control [email protected] Jackie Toth

tgers.eduRutgers University [email protected] Gordon Waring

ries Service National Marine [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]







Leni Wilsmann (facilitator) Conservation Impact [email protected] Patrick Woerner

dep.state.nj.usNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Patrick.Woerner@




Appendix VI: Species Summaries

ginal set of 19 priority species identified by the ongame Species Program. Workshop participants identified 16 focal

erences in each summary provided most of the ation for the summary. Information from those sources is used without

attribution to minimize repeated citations. These general references are identified in the References section of each summary. Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Blue Whale (Balaenopotera musculus) Fin Whale (Balaenopotera physalus) Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) True’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon mirus) Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) Gray Seal (Halichoerus grypus) Harp Seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) Hooded Seal (Cystophora cristata) Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta)

hese summaries cover the oriTEndangered and Nspecies for the workshop from this original group.

ote that the first three or four refNgeneral inform


Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) StaFedNewNatureServe: G5 IUCCITES: DeThe g to 6-12 feet in length averaging over 500 pounds. They are The dorsal fin is moderately curved, the flippers are convex and pointed, and the flukes are curved along the rear margin and notched in the center. There is a sharp dist DisThi face temperatures are abo coastal and the other offshore, the latter in waters 650 nal distribution appear to depend upon water temp northeastern coa BioFem and 12 years of age; for males the range is 10 to 13 yea years for females. Calves can be produced at any tim r, after a gestation period of nearly a year. Fem ars. Dol sionally are seen in herds of several hundred to a thousand offs orelines, in bays, lagoons, river mouths, and may trav als may maintain a home range and/or periodically move amo iduals have been observed to travel over 2,500 miles. Ani r the winter. Bottlenose dolphins are often observed trav Coa ividuals feed on fish and squid. Offshore indi Vulnerable Life Histor

tus eral: not listed Jersey: Stable

N Red List: Data Deficient Appendix II

scription bottlenose dolphin is medium size, rangindark gray above and light colored below.

inction between the forehead and the short nose.

tribs species is found across the globe in temperate and tropical waters, where sur

ution and Populations

ut 50-90 degrees F. Two forms are known, one -6500 feet deep. Limits to the range and seasoerature and available food. Of the estimated 10,000-13,000 bottlenose dolphins off the

st of North America, about 4% are coastal.

logy ale bottlenose dolphins reach maturity between 5

rs. Lifespan can be over 40 years for males and 50e of year, but most are born in the spring and summeales produce one young every 2-6 ye

phins travel in groups of 10-25, but occahore. Coastal individuals can be found along shel upstream in some rivers. Coastal individung areas, including offshore. Offshore indivmals may move out of high latitude waters foeling with other species.

stal individuals feed on fish and invertebrates; offshore indviduals may move with their migratory prey.

y Characteristics Nearshore populations may be especially vulnerable to environmental degradation and pollution. Bottlenose dolphins are long-lived and can accumulate a significant load of toxins that females can pass on to their offspring and that may reduce fertility in males. Nearshore animals may also become habituated to humans. The cause of the die-off in the late 1980’s may have been due to two morbilliviruses that spread southward from animals in New Jersey (Taubenberger et al. 1996). Human Impacts Incidental take in fishing gear occurs in various basins at relatively low levels. Efforts are underway to effectively exclude animals from nets. Dolphins in the Pacific are still hunted in low numbers for food

National Marine Fisheries Service

and bait. Of 124 bottlenose dolphins rescued by the Marine Mammal Stranding Center from 1995 r anim006). In New York and Delaware, from

001 through 2005, 9 and 81 stranded bottlenose dolphins were rescued, respectively. Of those 90 dividuals, 39 had fisheries impacts, 8 had been struck by boats, and 11 had been shot (Northeast Region

Network 2006).

Management ne Mammal Protection Act of 1972 has reduced the take of

ds to reduce incidental take by commercial fish Improving conditions in the coastal environment would also help dolphins and

eir prey populations.

ans/data/t_truncatus/t_truncatus.pdf NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version

vailable at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

through 2005, only 7 showed signs of human interaction. Foufishing gear and 3 had other signs of interaction (Schoelkopf 22inStranding. Conservation andPassage of the Mari dolphins in U.S. Waters.

eries is an important Continuing development of methoconservation measure. th References General information reported here without attribution was taken from the first three sources. Culik, B. 2003. Tursiops truncatus, bottlenose dolphin. Compiled for the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). www.cms.int/reports/small_cetace

4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. A . Accessed March 14, 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Western North Atlantic Coastal Bottlenose Dolphin. www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/Cetaceans/coastalbottlenose.html. Accessed March 14, 2006. Northeast Region Stranding Network. 2006. Unpublished data. Schoelkopf, R. 2006. Unpublished stranding data for 1995-2005. Marine Mammal Stranding Center, Brigantine, NJ.

rger, J.K., M. Tsai, A. E. Krafft, J.H. Lichy, A.H. Reid, F. Y. Schulman, and T. P. Lipscomb. Taubenbe1996. Two Morbilliviruses Implicated in Bottlenose Dolphin Epizootics. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2(3). http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol2no3/taubenbe.htm. Accessed March 9, 2006.

als showed signs of interaction with

Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Status Federal: Not listed New Jersey: Undetermined NatureServe: G5 IUCN Red List: Lower Risk/Least Concern CITES: Appendix II Description

lphin is one of several distinctively colored dolphins in the mid-Atlantic region. It has a e side. The

mdo phinus delphis) and the long-beaked saddle-backed dolphin (Delphinus capensis) (Heyning

bution th

This common dolphin occurs in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in subtropical and warm temperate

es aters fr mic onfusion in the past. Along the northeastern coast of the U.S., it ranges to near Nova Scotia or

The common dodark back and light belly, buffy sides, and white flank, which create an hourglass pattern on thdorsal fin is moderately curved. Body size ranges from 65 to 80 inches and weighs about 440 pounds.

The taxonomy of the common dolphin continues to be refined and there are several forms that may or ay not be separate species. Previously it was split into two species, the short-beaked saddle-backed lphin (Del

and Perrin 1994). The long-beaked saddle-back dolphin was thought to be more coastal in its distrian the short-beaked.

Distribution and Populations

waters, typically in waters more than 600 feet deep, in association with sea floor features such as carpments. Distribution is not uniform in continental waters, but generally stays within surface wom about 50 to 80 degrees F. Actual distribution of this species is hard to determine due to taxono

cNewfoundland in the summer and winters between the Gulf of Maine and Chesapeake Bay.

iology ife history characteristics vary among common dolphin populations. Typically it matures at pproximately 5-7 years of age and calving occurs about every two years. Gestation period is 10-11 onths and breeding peaks in spring, summer, or fall.

he common dolphin forages on pelagic schooling fish, such as sardines and anchovies, and squid, often eding at night. It may use group feeding techniques to capture prey.

is known to travel in groups of several dozen to 10,000 individuals that can be heard at a distance ecause of the splashing noises they make as they frequently jump out of the water. They may also travel ith other species. They may migrate seasonally to stay with warmer waters and they have been bserved to follow underwater escarpments.

ulnerable Life History Characteristics he common dolphin’s pelagic lifestyle, large herds, and active diving behavior make it especially sceptible to being taken incidentally by commercial fishing operations.

BLam Tfe Itbwo VTsu


HC on dolphins are still taken for food and bait in parts of its range and incidental take may be encouraged in parts of its range where there is a market for the meat. Black Sea and Mediterranean po have declined, most likely due to ovepulations r-harvesting and bycatch in legal and illegal fisheries, as w eeves et al. 2003). However, its principal interaction with humans is through co where it is one of the most common species in the bycatch of purse seine tu wordfish driftnet fishery off of Italy. Fortunately, mortality rates have de s due to changes in equipm Of the 47 common dolphins rescued by the Marine Mammal Stranding Center, New Jersey, from 1995 th owed signs of human interaction and that was with fishing gear (Schoelkopf 20rest CTaldo RG ut attribution was taken from the first three sources.

rch

rough 2005, only one sh06). In New York and Delaware from 2001 through 2005, 34 and 9 stranded saddlebacks, spectively, were rescued. Of those 43 individuals, 12 showed signs of fishery interaction, 7 had been ruck by a boat, and 4 had been shot (Northeast Region Stranding Network 2006).

onservation and Management he principal form of conservation that would benefit the common dolphin is improving fishing gear of l types to exclude dolphins from the catch. In some areas, improving water quality would benefit the lphin and undoubtedly other species, as well.

ferences eeneral information reported here withoCulik, B. 2003. Delphinus delphis, common dolphin. Compiled for the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). www.cms.int/reports/small_cetaceans/data/d_delphis/d_delphis.pdf. Accessed Ma3, 2006. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed March 14, 2006.

ational Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis): Western North ck Assessment Report. Accessed March 3, 2006.

NAtlantic Stohttp://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/Cetaceans/Common_Dolphin_(Western_N._Atlantic)/ao03commondolphinwesternnatlantic.pdf Heyning, J. E. and W. F. Perrin. 1994. Evidence for two species of common dolphins (genus Delphinus) in the eastern North Pacific. Nat. Hist. Mus

. Los Angeles County Contrib. Sci. (442): 1-35.

orld’s Cetaceans. IUCN/SSC

Northeast Region Stranding Network. 2006. Unpublished data. Reeves, R. R., B.D. Smith, E. A. Crespo, and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara (compilers). 2003. Dolphins, Whales and Porpoises: 2002–2010 Conservation Action Plan for the WCetacean Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ix + 139pp. Schoelkopf, R. 2006b. Unpublished stranding data for 1995-2005. Marine Mammal Stranding Center, Brigantine, NJ.

ent and procedures.

ell as other factors (Rmmercial fishing operations,

ific and sna fishery in the Pacclined in the tuna fishery over the past 20 year

uman Impacts omm

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

e

Status Federal: not listed New Jersey: Undetermined NatureServe: G4G5 IUCN Red List: Vulnerable CITES: Appendix II Description The harbor porpoise is relatively short and stocky, reaching a maximum length of 57-63 inches, with females attaining a larger size than males, and weighing 110-132 pounds. The back is dark gray and thbelly is white. The sides are mottled gray where the top and bottom coloration meets broadly. Distribution and Populations The harbor porpoise occupies the north temperate and subarctic waters of the northern Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Based upon genetic and contaminant load analysis, there are thought to be four populations of the harbor porpoise in the northwestern Atlantic. The southern-most population, the Gof Maine/Bay of Fundy population, was estima

ulf ted to have a minimum population size of about 75,000

9 (National Marine Fisheries Service 2003)

e

t eam), erage

dividuals,

little is know of its movements. It has been observed moving into the Bay of Fundy as young herring arrive. It has also been observed to move inshore during the spring and summer and away from shore during the winter. Vulnerable Life History Characteristics The harbor porpoise’s open water habit and preference for prey that are also harvested by the commercial fishing industry expose it potential interactions with fishering operations. This species is currently most vulnerable in the Baltic, Black, and Azov seas, where it has declined substantially and where environmental changes may be affecting its ability to rebound. Also, as a top carnivore, the harbor

individuals in 199 Biology Sexual maturity is reached at 3-4 years of age and most individuals live to only 7 or 8 years of age. In thAtlantic, females appear to reproduce each year, giving birth to a single calf. The gestation period is 10-11 months and young are weaned at about 8 months. Calves are born from late May to mid-August. Harbor porpoises are usually found in waters less than 650 feet deep and often in water less than half thadeep. They utilize bays, estuaries, river channels (where they may swim a significant distance upstrand off-shore areas over the continental shelf. They appear to limit their range to areas where the avannual water temperature doesn’t exceed 63 degrees. This porpoise is hard to detect in the wild. It is often found in small groups of fewer than 10 inthough occasionally it may be in groups of 50 to 100. It does not typically swim with other speices. It

h of itself as it swims. It can dive to does not jump or bow ride ahead of boats and doesn’t show mucdepths of over 700 feet. The principal food of the harbor porpoise is herring and similar fish, as well as squid. This species appears to have limited migrations that are related to food distribution and the seasons, though relatively


porpoise has accumulated major contamination loads, particularly in areas where rivers from nto its feeding grounds. The solution to this problem requires improving waterindustrialized areas drain i

quality in freshwater systems and reducing inputs, whether walready in the system may simply require time to be removed

ater or airborne. Some contaminants through natural processes.

Impacts be taken as incidental bycatch of the fishing industry. With changes in fishing

ng in 1999, the number of harbor porpoises killed in the mid-Atlantic from an estimated 358 to an estimated 33 per year (National Marine

or porpoise are directly hunted in West Greenland, where about 1,000 for meat each year. They carry a heavy contaminant load and individuals can be

entified with a population based upon the mix and concentration of con ues. inants in some cases are high enough to cause fertility problems in other species, but

ive

f the 142 individuals rescued by the Marine Mammal Stranding Center in New Jersey from 1995 an impact. Of those 24, 17 had interacted with fishing gear, 1 had

rotecting and restoring diminished populations of this species will require multinational efforts. to improve and implement protections on fishing gear and working with federal agencies to

eferences

Human Harbor porpoises canquotas and equipment beginnicoastal gillnet fishery declined Fisheries Service 2003). Harbindividuals are hunted id taminants found in its tissLevels of contamthat effect has not been studied in the harbor porpoise (Reeves et al. 2003). This species is also sensitto noise. Othrough 2005, 24 showed signs of humbeen hit by a boat, and 4 had other interactions (Schoelkopf 2006). In neighboring states from 2001-2005, New York rescued 47 stranded harbor porpoises and Delaware rescued 12 (Northeast Region Stranding Network 2006). Conservation and Management PContinuingenforce existing regulations are important protection actions. Also, acoustic disturbances in its feeding areas should be minimized. RGeneral information reported here without attribution was taken from the first three sources. Culik, B. 2003. Phocoena phocoena, harbor porpoise. Compiled for the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). www.cms.int/reports/small_cetaceans/data/p_phocoena /p_phocoena.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2006. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed March 14, 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena): Gulf of Maine, Bof Fundy Stock Assess

ay ment Report. Accessed March 3, 2006.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/Cetaceans/Harbor_Porpoise_(Gulf_of_Maine-Bay_of_Fundy)/03harborporpoisegulfofmainebayoffundy.pdf Northeast Region Stranding Network. 2006. Unpublished data.

s,

ublished stranding data for 1995-2005. Marine Mammal Stranding Center, Brigantine, NJ.

Reeves, R. R., B.D. Smith, E. A. Crespo, and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara (compilers). 2003. DolphinWhales and Porpoises: 2002–2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World’s Cetaceans. IUCN/SSC Cetacean Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ix + 139pp. Schoelkopf, R. 2006b. Unp

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Fin Whale us) (Balaenoptera physalHumpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) True’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon mirus) Status All species except True’s beaked whale are listed as endangered in the U.S. and New Jersey. All have a NatureServe rank of G3 or G3G4 (vulnerable) except the right whale, which is G1 (critically imperiled). All are listed by IUCN as endangered or vulnerable except for True’s, which is listed as data deficien

escription

t.

blue whale is not only the largest whale, but also the largest whales

DAll species are large and long-lived. The known animal on earth, past or present. The blue, fin, humpback, right, and sei whales are baleen that obtain their food by filtering it out of the water in the long plates of baleen that grow from the upperjaw and act as a strainer. The sperm and True’s whales are toothed. True’s has two teeth that erupt fromthe lower jaw of adult males (they are unerupted in females) and are thought to be used in combat with

ther males, based upon scars found on their skin. T

he sperm whale has teeth only on the lower jaw and ch they fit in the upper jaw.

an

P

ri

lf, though some, e.g. the right

ears and possibly as long as 90 or 100 years. Females mature at 5-10 years, depending pon the species. All give birth to a single calf, typically only every 2-4 years. Calves wean in less than year, typically at 6-8 months of age.

ll species migrate to some extent, occupying warmer waters in the winter and arctic or subarctic waters the summer. Some travel great distances from calving to foraging grounds. The western North

mmer from New England to Greenland and winter near the West Indies. North

osockets into whi Distribution and Populations All but True’s are global in distribution and generally occupy subarctic to arctic waters in the summer

d temperate to subtropical or tropical waters in the winter. True’s range is less well known, but appears to be more restricted to temperate waters, both north and south of the equator.

opulations of all but True’s have been decimated by hunting in the past and most have not recovered to anywhere near their estimated original population numbers. The right whale is at especially low numbers and does not appear to have recovered at all, despite protective measures. There are an estimated 300

ght whales in the North Atlantic.

tal sheAll but the humpback are pelagic, typically found off the continenwhale, may be found over the continental shelf. Humpbacks are often found over continental shelves, around oceanic islands, and sometimes closer to shore in embayments.

Biology The actual life spans of these long-lived species aren’t well known for some species, but most are thought

live at least 50 ytoua AinAtlantic humpbacks su

Fin Whale National Marine Fisheries Service

Atlantic right whales summer from New England to easteMany species return to the same locations seasonally, ind

rn Canada and from South Carolina to Florida. icating historically good foraging areas. Most

good foraging habitat.

s) and copepods, though some also fish.

them in areas whert they are sensitive to noises in their e not recovered from their early

t may be that even low numbers of

species travel alone or in small groups, but there may be larger congregations in The baleen whales eat primarily invertebrates such as krill (euphausideat smaller schooling fish. The toothed species eat squid and occasionally Vulnerable Life History Characteristics The pelagic habits of these long-lived species place e they can become entangled in fishing gear and be struck by large ships. It is also thought thaenvironment, such as from large ships. Why these species havdecimation is not known. For some, especially the right whale, ipopulation loss due to entanglement and ship strikes are enough to keep the population from recovering.

search is needed to determine if commercial fishing activities may directly or indirectly affect

pacts include pollution and plastics in the environment, noise, and whale-sturbances. Human interactions, especially ship strikes and fishing interactions, are

Further retheir food sources, especially krill in the Pacific Ocean and smaller schooling fish. Human Impacts Ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear are the most common sources of human impacts on these species today. Other imwatching boat dimonitored in the U.S. under provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Other effects, such as past reductions in population numbers and climate change, are not well understood. Stranded sei (1), humpback (4), and fin (10) whales have been recovered from New Jersey over the past 11 years (1995-2005). Eleven of the 15 individuals showed signs of human impact, both ship strikes (9) and propeller hits (2) (Schoelkopf 2006). From 2001-2005, Delaware reported one stranded humpback that had been hit by a boat; New York reported 13 stranded whales (2 fin, 5 humpback, 2 right, 3 sei, and

fishery gear entanglement and 8 had been struck by ships k 2006).

ntions to regulate

ecting important habitat from shipping activity would reduce ship rikes and disturbances. Protection for all of these species will require multinational cooperation.

e first three sources. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version

1 sperm), of which one showed signs of(Northeast Regional Stranding Networ Conservation and Management Despite conservation measures that have been in place for baleen whales through convewhaling in 1931 and 1946, and more recently the U.S. Endangered Species Act, most species are not rebounding as scientists thought they would. Population size, structure, habitat use, communication, etc., are poorly known for all species and are essential to conducting informed management. Conservation measures to reduce and eliminate ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear are important to continue to pursue. Also, identifying and protst References General information reported here without attribution was taken from th NatureServe. 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed March 14, 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Stock Assessment Reports. Accessed March 28, 2006. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Cetacean species accounts. Accessed March 13, 2006. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/ Northeast Region Stranding Network. 2006. Unpublished data. Schoelkopf, R. 2006b. Unpublished stranding data for 1995-2005. Marine Mammal Stranding CenteBrigantine, NJ.

r,

Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) Status Federal: Not listed New Jersey: Stable NatureServe: G5 IUCN Red List: CITES: Appendix Description Harbor seals range in color from white to dark brown, with contrasting spots or rings on the back. The pattern of the coat is unique to each individual. Males reach 1.4-1.9 meters and weigh 55-170 kg. Females are somewhat smaller at 1.2-1.7 meters and 45-105 kg. Distribution and Populations The harbor seal is widely distributed, occurring in temperate, subarctic, and arctic regions of the NortherHemisphere. In the western North Atlantic, it breeds from Baffin Island to Massachusetts. It has bee(rarely) found as far south as Florida. Along with several other species, the harbor seal is becoming mabundant in New York Harbor and adjacent waters and farther south during winter months. Slocum (2006) is studying a wintering, multi-species group of seals, primarily harbor seals, i

n n ore

n Great Bay, New

kg. ups in the western North Atlantic are typically born in a

pulation and its latitude, between May and July. Pups can crawl

l

cluding squid, octopus, and crustaceans.

hucapture as bycatch in gillnet fisheri

ated to commercial fishing in the

Jersey. Eastern and western North Atlantic populations are genetically differentiated. Global population is estimated at 400,000-500,000. The 2001 estimate for the coast of Maine is about 99,000 (National Marine Fisheries Service 2003). Biology Females mature at 3-6 years of age, around 50 kg., and males mature at 3-7 years of age at about 75Gestation of the single pup lasts 9-11 months. Ptwo-month period, depending upon the poand swim shortly after birth and wean quickly, in about 4 weeks. Lifespan is usually less than 25 years. Molting occurs in July to August in the western North Atlantic. Harbor seals are generally solitary, except when they haul out onto land. They may move southward in the winter, when they can be observed as far south as the Chesapeake Bay. They typically occupy coastawaters in bays, harbors, coastal rivers, and up to about 10 miles offshore. In New Jersey, harbor seals are being studied at Great Bay where they are observed during non-breeding season (Slocum 2006). Harbor seals eat fish and invertebrates, in Vulnerable Life History Characteristics Harbor seals are susceptible to impacts both on land and water. Habitat degradation, disturbances, and

nting may occur at haul out sites and nurseries on land. Water quality degradation and pollution, es, and boat strikes are the principal risks in the water. Harbor seals

are also subject to several diseases. Human Impacts Multi-species sink gillnet fishing is the principal cause of death relNorth Atlantic and juveniles appear to be more susceptible than adults. Relatively few individuals are


ta y where all bycatch for January to April was recorded over se of New Jersey (National Marine Fisheries Service 2003). Strandings occur primarily during the winter months in the mid-Atlantic region. The Marine Mammal Stranding Center in New Jersey reported 224 stranded harbor seals from 1995 through 2005. Of those, 16 sh interaction, primarily with fisheries (Schoelkopf 2006). New York and Delaware re ndings, respectively, from 2001 through 2005, of which 74 (NY) and 3 (DE) sh York animals, 58 indicated fishery interactions, 10 ha oat, and 6 had been shot (Northeast Region Strandin Conservation and Management The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 has aided the recovery of the harbor seal and many other pinnipeds. However, entrapment in fishing gear remains a source of mortality for this species in the North Atlantic. Better understanding of entanglement events and improving protection mechanisms on

e sink gillnet equipment could reduce these losses. Continuing to protect haul out sites will provide thsafe terrestrial habitat. RG

eferences eneral information reported here without attribution was taken from the first three sources. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed March 14, 2006. MarineBio.org. 2006. Phoca vitulina, Harbor Seal. http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=158 Accessed March 28, 2006. National Marine Fisheries Servic

ssessment Report. Accessed March 2 e. 2003. Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina): Western North Atlantic Stock

8, 2006. .nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/Pinnipeds/Harbor_Seal_(Western_N._

Ahttp://wwwAtlantic)/03harborsealwesternnatlantic.pdf Northeast Region Stranding Network. 2006. Unpublished data. Schoelkopf, R. 2006b. Unpublished stranding data for 1995-2005. Marine Mammal Stranding Center, Brigantine, NJ. Slocum, C. 2006. New Jersey Seal Study. Accessed March 29, 2006.

ttp://intraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/page.crm?siteID=105&pageID=2

2h

g Network 2006).

ken in the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fisherveral years and observation was focused off

owed signs of humanported 156 and 17 straowed signs of human interaction. Of the 74 New d been struck by a b

Gray Seal (Halichoerus grypus) Harp Seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) Hooded Seal (Cystophora cristata) Status These species are not federally listed and their global conservation status from NatureServe is G5

UCN lists them as lower or least risk, except the southern Baltic (secure) or G4G5 (apparently secure). ISea population of the gray seal, which is listed as endangered. Distribution and Populations Theses seals generally occur in the North Atlantic in arctic, subarctic, and in some cases, temperate waters as adults. Breeding occurs primarily from the Gulf of St. Lawrence northward in the western North Atlantic populations. Young may be more widely distributed than adults and all have been reported

, usually as juveniles, but occasionally as adults. Global populations estimates range from h Atlantic

in New Jersey5.5-9 million for harp seals to 650,000 for hooded seals, and 300,000 for grays; western Nortpopulation estimates are 4-6.4 million, 450,000, and 150,000 respectively. Hooded seals are highly migratory, wandering as far northwest as Alaska and as far south as the Caribbean. Harp seals may traveas far as 1,500 miles and young gray seals may wander more than 600 miles.

l

ys (hooded), 12 (harp) or 18 days pring to summer. All 3 species

g season (Slocum 2006). All species feed on fish and invertebrates, including squid, octopus, and crustaceans. Hooded seals may dive almost 2,000 meters while feeding. Harp seals have been recorded dive 900 feet and gray seals may go as deep as 200 feet when feeding. Vulnerable Life History Characteristics All three species have similar vulnerabilities due to their pelagic life style and habit of congregating during breeding. Exposure to degraded environmental conditions is also a problem for some populations, especially in the Baltic Sea and in other areas where industrial wastes enter the Atlantic. Human Impacts All three species are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 in the U.S. However, they continue to be hunted as adults and/or young elsewhere. Although hunting for their skins and oil has been reduced in some areas, such as in the European Union member states and Canada, relatively large numbers may be taken in some areas, including pups, which are taken for their fur.

Biology These are long-lived species, maturing typically between 3 and 7 years of age and living to 25-35 years of age, depending upon the species. Harp seals are about 5.5 feet long and weigh nearly 300 lbs. Gray seals are slightly larger at about 6 feet long and 400 lbs. Male hooded seals may reach nearly 10 feet long and weigh close to 900 lbs.; females are smaller at 7.5 feet and 500 lbs. Breeding habitat is rocky beaches on isolated mainland coasts or islands (gray) or pack ice (hooded and harp). Breeding occurs in late winter to early spring, soon after the pups are born, and gestation takes about a year. All species produce one pup per year, which weans in 4 da(gray). Each species congregates during molting, which occurs in late shave been observed in New Jersey’s Great Bay during the non-breedin

Gray Seal ©National Zoological Park

A ing gear. The commercial fishing industry in Canada and th al populations to protect economically valuable fish st ocks due to overfishing has reduced food for the se ch of food. Oil spills and bioconcentrated organochl o significant environmental contaminants that all three species face. S The Mse(S strandings, respectively, from 2001 th showing signs of human interaction. 60% of the New York inR CHWnu

ll species are subject to entanglement in fishe United Kingdom is calling for culling of seocks, though others suggest that the decline in fish stals and is causing them to move farther south in sear

orines are tw

trandings occur primarily during the winter months through early spring in the mid-Atlantic region.arine Mammal Stranding Center in New Jersey reported strandings of 75 gray, 240 harp, and 45 hooded als from 1995 through 2005. Of those 360 individuals, 4 showed signs of human interaction

hoelkopf 2006). New York and Delaware reported 493 and 34crough 2005, with 322 (NY) and 4 (DE)teractions were with fishery equipment, 33% with boat strikes, and 6.5% had been shot (Northeast egion Stranding Network 2006).

onservation and Management unting and entrapment in fishing gear are the two main causes of human-induced death in these species. hile seals are taken by subsistence fishing communities in Canada, those deaths are low relative to the mber trapped in fishing gear and killed for commercial sale in Canada, despite falling markets for seal

pran s and will require m participation. RG n

lorer. Accessed March

oducts. Protecting haul-out sites for land-based species, improving fishing gear to limit entanglement, reducing commercial hunting outside the U.S. are key conservation measured

ultinational

eferences eneral information reported here without attribution was taken from the first four sources. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Versio

.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/exp414, 2006. MarineBio.org. 2006. Haliochoerus grypus, Gray Seal. http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=300 Accessed March 28, 2006. MarineBio.org. 2006. Pagophilus groenlandicus, Harp Seal. http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=302 Accessed March 28, 2006.

arineBio.org. 2006. Cystophora cristata, Hooded Seal. http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=3 04M

d March 29, 2006.

Accessed March 28, 2006. Northeast Region Stranding Network. 2006. Unpublished data. Schoelkopf, R. 2006b. Unpublished stranding data for 1995-2005. Marine Mammal Stranding Center,

rigantine, NJ. BSlocum, C. 2006. New Jersey Seal Study. Accessehttp://intraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/page.crm?siteID=105&pageID=22

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Status Federal: Endangered: breeding colony populations in FL and on

eatened NatureServe: G3

. uchal

nds and measure 36-48 inches carapace length.

s

. 1992). bstructure of green turtle nesting populations indicates that females return to d (Bowen et al. 1992). Juveniles forage far from their natal area, with local

ng populations representing nesting colonies from the U.S., Mexico, and Venezuela (Bass

turtles reach sexual maturity at 20 years of age or older, estimated at around 27 years of age for ting

s

Pacific coast of Mexico; Threatened everywhere else New Jersey: Thr

IUCN Red List: Endangered CITES: Appendix I Description Green sea turtle adults have a smooth, brown carapace, often with radiating or blotchy dark markingsPlastron is yellowish white. The carapace has four pairs of costal scutes, the first not touching the nscute. Adults weigh 250-450 pou Distribution and Populations Primarily tropical in its distribution in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. Juveniles regularly occur as far north as New England; adults occasionally range that far north. There is limited nesting in the continental U.S., estimated at 200-1,100 nesting females, primarily on the Atlantic coast of Florida, witha few nests from North Carolina to Georgia. There is a phylogenetic distinction between all green turtlein the Atlantic and Mediterranean basin from those in the Indian and Pacific Oceans (Bowen et alThe geographic genetic sutheir natal beaches to breeFlorida foragiand Witzell 2000). Biology Green sea females in Florida, depending upon their growth rate. Females rarely nest in successive years. Nesoccurs at night on high energy beaches with deep sand, from approximately May through September in Florida, with most females returning to the area of their natal beach. They lay an average of 3-4 clutcheper nesting season, but may lay as many as nine, at intervals of about two weeks. Each clutch contains on average about 140 eggs and takes 45-70 days to hatch, depending upon temperature. Hatchlings emerge from the nest typically at night and move to the sea.

ns, shoals, and inlets. They are attracted to these low energy environments by their

Except when migrating, green turtles are typically found in near-shore, relatively shallow waters inside reefs, bays, lagooprincipal foods, sea grasses and marine algae. Green turtles can migrate and foraging areas. Animals that nest on Ascension Island are known


long distances between nesting to forage in Brazilian waters, over

600 miles away (Carr 1975). Hatchlings move to oceanic conversion zones where they have been observed in Sargassum rafts. They apparently remain there until they are 8-10 inches long, when the move into near-shore foraging habitats. Young green turtles eat a diversity of animals and plants. Vulnerable Life History Characteristics The green turtle’s complex population structure and high rate of fidelity of nesting females to the beaches where they were born has multiple implications for conservation and management. Impacts at nesting beaches, such as egg collection, habitat destruction, and predation on adults and young, are significant causes of green turtle decline. Although individual females are known to occasionally move between beaches in a single nesting season or between nesting years, loss of habitat will have long-term effects on

. In addition, the multiple migratory stages of the life cycle expose each individual to diverse the colony

conditions. Population changes in one area may be the result of envimaking effective conservation and management a multi-national responsibilit

ronmental changes elsewhere, y. Fibropapillomatosis, a

isease of unknown origin that causes multiple tumors on the skin and internal organs, interferes with and physiology, and can cause death.

gs and meat is a major cause of the green turtle’s decline in parts of its range. e loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development; modifications of

rmoring, grooming, nourishment, and dri of nt lighting; excessive nest predation by native and non-native predators; and

ehicles and recreational equipment on nesting beaches (National Marine Fisheries Service 1991). In the ent, degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution; entanglement and ingestion of

6 exhibited human teractions including with fishing activities, boat strike, and impingement on a power plant grate

is species conservation.

n

dactivities Human Impacts Commercial harvest for egOther threats includnesting habitat, such as beach a ft fencing; disorientation hatchlings by beachfrovmarine environmdebris; watercraft strikes; and destruction of habitat and incidental take from channel dredging; and incidental take from commercial fishing operations (long-lines and nets). Of the 8 green turtles rescued by the Marine Mammal Stranding Center in New Jersey between 1995 and 2005, in(Schoelkopf 2006). Conservation and Management Key conservation and management efforts include continuing to protect the most significant nesting beaches, reducing beach front lighting, and expanding the use of turtle excluding devices in fishing operations beyond U.S. waters. Also, continuing the research supported by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on fibropapilloma disease in search of a solution is important. Over the long-term, rising sea levels from global climate change will threaten many nestingbeaches. The impact will be especially severe where development immediately adjacent to the shoreline has eliminated potential higher nesting habitat. Continuing international conservation efforts is the key to th References General information reported here without attribution was taken from the first three sources. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Versio4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed March 14, 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas). www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.html. Accessed March 9, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Green Sea Turtle Fact Sheet.

colony. Copeia 1975: 547-555.

r,

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/Green-Sea-Turtle.htm. Accessed March 9, 2006. Bass, A. L, and W. N. Witzell. 2000. Demographic composition of immature green turtles (Chelonia mydas) from the east central Florida coast: Evidence from mtDNA markers. Herpetologica 56: 357-367. Bowen, B. W., A. B. Meylan, J. P. Ross, C. J. Limpus, G. H. Balazs, and J. C. Avise. 1992. Globalpopulation structure and natural history of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in terms of matriarchalphylogeny. Evolution 46(4): 865-881. Carr, A. 1975. The Ascension Island green turtle National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 58 pp. Schoelkopf, R. 2006. Unpublished stranding data for 1995-2005. Marine Mammal Stranding CenteBrigantine, NJ. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Green Turtle Fact Sheet. Accessed March 9, 2006.

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Status Federal: Endangered

ered

-

o

the

New Jersey: EndangNatureServe: G3 IUCN Red List: Critically Endangered CITES: Appendix I Description The hawksbill is a medium-sized turtle with a brown carapace distinguished by its large, overlapping scutes except in very young and very old individuals. Some have a radiating pattern of lighter markings,a “tortoiseshell” pattern. It has four pairs of costal scutes and the first does not touch the nuchal. There are two pairs of prefontals between the eyes and two claws on each flipper. Adults typically weigh 95165 pounds and measure about 30 inches long, though they can reach 36 inches and 300 pounds. Distribution and Populations The hawksbill occurs in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. It is widely distributed in the Caribbean and in the western North Atlantic, especially in the Gulf of Mexicand waters off of southern Florida. It has been reported as far north as Massachusetts, but it is rarely observed north of Florida. Nesting occurs on the southeast coast of Florida and the Florida Keys in continental U.S. The most important U.S. nesting sites are Mona Island, Puerto Rico, and Buck Island, U.S. Virgin Islands. After dramatic declines throughout the Caribbean since the 1950’s and perhaps before, numbers appear to be slowly increasing at Mona Island and they are stable, but low, at Buck Island. Nesting is increasing in Mexico where conservation and protection measures are having an impact (Meylan 1999a). Biology Age at first reproduction for females is not well known and is thought to be as late as 30 years of age. Nesting occurs at night, from April to November, often on small, isolated, low energy beaches with deep

nd and some woody vegetation. More densely occupied beaches in Mexico appear to be the exception, saaverage 4.5 clutches of out 60 days to hatch, at

A

ve s

fo

As with other sea turtles, the hawksbill’

ttlement of the

at least at current population levels. Females nest every 2 or 3 years. They lay on about 140 eggs each at 14 day intervals across the nesting season. Eggs require ab

hich time the hatchlings move to the sea. w

dult hawksbills are often found in shallow (less than 65 feet deep), hard-bottom environments such asral reefs and rockco y areas, but may also be found in mangrove-bordered bays and estuaries. Adults feed

on invertebrates and may be specializing on sponges. Hatchlings are found associated with floating getation in convergence zones. They return to a reef environment at about 13 inches in length, but it i

not known what age that represents. Hawksbills may migrate several hundred miles between nesting and foraging areas (Meylan 1999b). Preliminary genetic analysis indicates that aggregations of turtles in

raging areas draw from distant and genetically different nesting colonies and that females return to tal beaches to nest (Bass 1999).na

Vulnerable Life History Characteristics

s long maturation period and high mobility cause it to be exposed to diverse environmental conditions controlled by many countries. At those beaches where numerous individuals nest (or did in the past), collection of females for meat, eggs, and the prized shell (tortoiseshell) is potentially quite easy. Turtle harvesting occurred prior to European se


Caribbean and as late as the early 1950’s, harvesters reported collectinmile stretch of beach (Meylan 1999a).

g 35-50 females per night in a one

Impacts

mans for tortoiseshell was the principal cause of this species’ decline. The trade 3, but there is interest by Cuba to downlist the hawksbill to CITES Appendix

w trade to resume. Other threats include habitat degradation and loss due to beach man activity and vehicle use on beaches; beachfront lighting;

ediately adjacent to beaches. Entanglement in fishing gear, bycatch by the ommercial fishing industry, marine pollution and debris which can be ingested, degradation of coral

entation, entrainment in cooling water intakes, and propeller strikes from recreational

front ghting, using turtle excluding devices in fishing operations, and implementing more habitat protection

evel of harvesting and implementing conservation and protection e

ted

Human Overexploitation by huin tortoiseshell ended in 1992, which would alloarmoring, nourishment, and grooming; huand development immcreefs from sedimwatercraft are among the threats in the marine environment. Conservation and Management Key conservation and management efforts include enforcing a global ban on tortoiseshell trade (some countries are not signatories of the CITES convention), protecting nesting beaches, reducing beachliand patrolling. Assessing the current lefforts where the threats are the highest is important for allowing breeding stocks to become re-establish.Over the long-term, rising sea levels from global climate change will threaten many nesting beaches. Thimpact will be especially severe where development immediately adjacent to the shoreline has eliminapotential higher nesting habitat. A multinational approach will be necessary to protect existing hawksbill populations and rebuild population numbers. References General information reported here without attribution was taken from the first three sources. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed March 14, 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/hawksbill.html. Accessed March 9, 2006. U.S.F.W.S. 2006. Hawksbill Sea Turtle Fact Sheet. Accessed March 3, 2006. www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/hawksbill-sea-turtle.htm Bass, A.L. 1999. Genetic analysis to elucidate the natural history and behavior of hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the wider Cariand Biology 3(2):195-199.

bbean: a review and re-analysis. Chelonian Conservation

Meylan, A.B. 1999a. Status of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean Region. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):177–184. Meylan, A. B. 1999b. International Movements of Immature and Adult Hawksbill Turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean Region. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):189-194.

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)

turtle, with an avan 45 kg and straight carapace length of about 65 cm. Adults are olive green

e as it is long. There are 5 costal scut

Status Federal: Endangered New Jersey: Endangered NatureServe: G1 IUCN Red List: Critically Endangered CITES: Appendix I Description Along with the olive ridley, Kemp’s ridley is the smallest seathcolored below. The shell is nearly as widthe nuchal. The 4 scutes on the bridge between carapace and plastron have a p Distribution and Populations Nesting populations are restricted to the Gulf of Mexico, primarily at Rancho NMexico, with sporadic nesting on Mustang Island, Texas, and several recent neridley is the most imperiled of the sea turtles, with dramatic declines occurringbreeding population of females was 42,000 in 1947. That number dropped to bbeginning a slow increase in the last 15 years. Immatures range from the Gulf Scotia. Biology Females reach maturity at 8-15 years of age. They reproduce annually, laying

Pshore currents. Adults forage in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Juveniles range

Y

sc

VT

e

uman Impacts uman impacts at the nesting grounds have been greatly reduced with habitat pr poachers. Requiring turtle excluding devices on Gulf shrimping operations

ycatch there. Dredging results in accidental takings and debris in the environme turtles or entangles them. Of the 45 Kemp’s ridleys rescued by the Marine New Jersey since 1995, 53% showed signs of human impact. 11% indicated

ear, 18% became impinged on a power plant grate, 4% had been hit by a boatowed signs of other human impacts (Schoelkopf 2006).

during the day. Eggs require 50-55 days for incubation. Many females lay theirost-hatchlings spend many months as surface drifters in pelagic waters associ

and Long Island Sound in summer and sub-adults occupy coastal habitats and soung animals may wash ashore after being cold-stunned in late fall or early w

Kemp’s ridley turtles feed on invertebrates, primarily benthic organisms, includallops, snails, and plants.

ulnerable Life History Characteristics he limited nesting ground and tendency for many females to nest at once plac

over-harvesting of eggs and adults by humans, as well as predation by other spshing gear added another significant threat to the species. Migfi ration long dis

subadult foraging increases exposure to a variety of environmental dangers, incgradation, entanglement in fishing gear, and cold-stunning. d

HHfobthingsh


erage adult weight of less -gray above and cream-es, the first one touching

. ore at the posterior edge

uevo, Tamaulipas, stings in Florida. Kemp’s since the estimated elow 1,000 before as far north as Nova

1-4 clutches of 100 eggs

north to Chesapeake Bay e banks.

in northern latitudes. crabs, mussels,

rotection and patrolling has reduced deaths due to ent is often consumed by

Mammal Stranding Center interaction with fishing propeller, and 20%

eggs at the same time. ated with weedlines in off-

hallow off-shorinter ing

ed the population at risk of ecies. Entrapment intances for juvenile and luding near-shore habitat

Conservation and Management Continuing protection of nesting beaches, including patrols to inhibit egg harve

esting success. Enforcing use of turtle excluder devices by the shrimping industries of the U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico should continue to encourage a population increase. Surveying for

ions and protecting any promising beaches would help expand the nesting

sting, is critical for nMexico inadditional nesting locatpopulation beyond Nuevo Rancho. Reducing oil spills in the Gulf and reducing the garbage load in Gulf

turtles. Conservation of Kemp’s Ridley will requir

eferences tion reported here without attribution was taken from the first four sources.

waters would both help the e on-going international cooperation. RGeneral informa NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed Marc14, 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Kemp’s Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii).

h

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/kemps.html. Accessed March 9, 2006. 6. Kemp’s Fact Sheet. Accessed March 9, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 200

www.fws.gov/kempsridley/kempsfactsheet.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1992. Recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg Schoelkopf, R. 2006. Unpublished stranding data for 1995-2005. Marine Mammal Stranding CBrigantine, NJ.

, FL. enter,

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Status Federal: Endangered New Jersey: Endangered NatureServe: G2 IUCN Red List: Critically Endangered

ITES: Appendix I

to

C Description The leatherback is the largest living turtle. It has a unique, rubber-like carapace that consists primarily of

ugh, oil-saturated connective tissue. The carapace is dark and may have mottled pinkish blotches. The plastron is mottled black and whitish. Both the carapace and plastron are covered with skin, not scutes.

T ndian Oceans, where it nests in tropical and

fr

Adults range in weight from 200-700 kg and the average curved carapace length is 155 cm.

Distribution and Populations he leatherback occurs in the Atlantic, Pacific, and I

subtropical waters and forages in temperate and subpolar areas. In the western North Atlantic, it ranges om Nova Scotia to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Summer concentrations in the vicinity of

New Jersey occur south of Long Island, in the eastern and central Gulf of Maine, and in the Chesapeake ay area. The largB

Aest Atlantic nesting colonies are in French Guiana/Suriname, Trinidad, and western

frica. In the southeastern U.S., most nesting occurs in Florida, though in much smaller numbers. A few ests have been reported from North Carolina to Georgia (Murphy and Murphy 2005). Numbers at many esting beaches worldwide have declined over the past several decades (Spotila et al 1996).

iology eatherbacks are thought to reach sexual maturity at 6 to 10 years of age. In the U.S. nesting occurs from arch to July at night on high energy beaches near deep water. Females return to their nesting beaches

very 2 to 3 years and lay 5 to 7 clutches per season at 9 to 10 day intervals. Clutches may be laid at ifferent nesting beaches in the same season. Clutches contain 70-90 eggs that incubate for 55 to 75 days. atchlings emerge at night and move directly to the ocean. Nothing is known about their next several ears.

Leatherbacks are the most pelagic of all sea turtles and the most migratory, approaching shore primarily to breed. They feed on invertebrates, especially jellyfish, and are able to dive deeply. Vulnerable Life History Characteristics The leatherback’s migratory behavior subjects it to a variety of conditions under the control of many countries. Population changes in one area may be the result of environmental changes elsewhere, making effective conservation and management a multi-national responsibility. It’s pelagic lifestyle exposes it to the longline fishery, which takes significant numbers each year as bycatch. The leatherback’s propensity to eat plastic may be because the plastic resembles the turtle’s preferred prey, jellyfish. As with all sea turtles, disturbances on the nesting beach that affect female behavior, changes to the physical condition of the nest site, or disturbances that disorient hatchlings are significant problems that increase predation rates and reduce nesting attempts or nesting success. Where they still occur, collecting eggs and adults affects survivorship. Human Impacts Habitat destruction and degradation, incidental catch in commercial fisheries, and plastics in the marine

ent are the

nn BLMedHy

greatest threats to leatherbacks. Females are deterred by obstructions of nesting


environm

habitats and hatchlings become disoriented by lights and incur a higher plong-line commercial fisheries in the North Atlantic take on average 170

redation rate. Canadian pelagic leatherbacks per year, though no

cidental takes were reported for 2001-2003 (DOR 2004). Leatherbacks have also been found tangled inar (DOR 2004). Global estimate for leatherbacks taken as bycatch of longline fishing for the

ividuals, resulting in thousands of deaths (Lewison et al. 2004). Enlarged turtle few years have reduced the number of animals caught by shrimp trawling.

cks rescued by the Marine Mammal Stranding Center in New Jersey from 1995 %) had signs of human interactions. 14% had evidence of being

% had an interaction with fishery equipment, and boat.

and Management

nsustainable incidental harvests. Over the long-term, rising sea levels from global climate change will pact will be especially severe where development immediately

s

infishing geyear 2000 is 50,000 indexcluder devices in the pastOf the 177 leatherbathrough 2005 (average = 16/year), 42 (24struck by a propeller, 8 2% had been struck by a ConservationLeatherback migratory patterns make it essential that their conservation be a multi-national effort. Key conservation and management efforts include protecting nesting beaches, reducing beach front lighting, and using turtle excluding devices in fishing operations globally. Developing protective longline fishing gear that significantly reduces the number of leatherbacks taken as bycatch globally is critical to reduce uthreaten many nesting beaches. The imadjacent to the shoreline has eliminated potential higher nesting habitat. Additional information ineeded about the leatherback’s life history, particularly for hatchlings and juveniles. References General information reported here without attribution was taken from the first three sources. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed March 14, 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea).

fs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htmlwww.nm . Accessed March 9, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Leatherback Sea Turtle Fact Sheet. http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/leatherback-sea-turtle.htm. Accessed March 9, 2006. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 2004. Allowable harm assessment for leatherback turtle in Atlantic Canadian waters. DFO Science Stock Status Report 2004/035. Lewison, R.L., S.A. Freeman and L.B. Crowder. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wcp/pdf/Leatherbacktutle.pdf

Letters. 7:221-231. Murphy, S. and T. Murphy. 2005. Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) . In: South Carolina

ter, Accessed March 9, 2006. Schoelkopf, R. 2006b. Unpublished stranding data for 1995-2005. Marine Mammal Stranding CenBrigantine, NJ. Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin and F.V. Paladino. 1996. Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: Are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 2(2):209-222.

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) Status Federal: Threatened New Jersey: Endangered NatureServe: G3 IUCN Red List: Endangered CITES: Appendix I Description The loggerhead is a large sea turtle with reddish-brown carapace and flippers; the plastron is yellow. Thcarapace has five pairs of costal scutes with the first touching the nuchal scute. The bridge between the

e

plastron and carapace has 3 large scutes. Adults average 200 pounds and 36 inches carapace length. Distribution and Populations The loggerhead is found in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans in subtropical and tropical waters, ranging into temperate waters in the summer. Principal nesting habitat in the U.S. is on Atlantic beafrom North Carolina to south Florida, with the majority of nesting occurring in Florid

ches a. A few nests are

gularly found in Virginia. Nests are found very rarely in New Jersey and have been unsuccessful rs. comm. 2006). In non-nesting years, U.S.-nesting females are found off the eastern

T

re(Schoelkopf, peU.S. and south into the Gulf of Mexico.

here are five genetically distinct nesting subpopulations in the western North Atlantic, ranging from North Carolina to the Yucatan. Recent research (Bowen et al. 2005) has found that despite the strong

s across th s. As sub-adults

ting a population structure th

L y active for usually

nela roximately 120 eggs each in open sandy beaches between the high tide line and

of ac ter ha The sex of the hatchlings is determined by the incubation temperature of the

genetic population structure at nesting beaches due to strong female fidelity, juvenile populatione North Atlantic contain a broad mix of individuals from different nesting population

move into shallower habitats, they begin to home in on their natal region, creaat is similar to, but not identical with the structure at their natal beach.

Biology oggerheads reach sexual maturity at 15-30 years of age and females may be reproductivel

about 30 years. Mating takes place in late March to early June in the southeastern U.S. Femalesst every 2-3 years, returning to the beach where they hatched or within 1-2 miles of it. They typically y 2-6 clutches of app

dunes. Clutches are produced at intervals of 2 weeks, from late April to early September, with the peaktivity in June. The incubation period is 8-9 weeks and hatchlings emerge from the nest a few days aftching, typically at night.

nest, not by a sex chromosome. Warmer nests produce more females and the sex ratio of loggerhead


po southeastern U.S. are skewed towards females.

H U.S. ar he North Atlantic gyre and have been found in the astern North Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. Some have been found associated with Sargassum and ey may spend several years there. Sub-adults move back to the general region of their natal beach,

ccupying near-shore and estuarine environments. Adults inhabit a variety of habitats, from the ontinental shelf to more coastal habitats of bays, lagoons, estuaries, and river mouths.

oggerheads eat a range of invertebrates, such as crustaceans, mollusks, and echinoderms. They may lso eat slow-moving or dead fish. Young feed on invertebrates concentrated at the surface.

pulations in the

atchlings move directly into the sea after leaving the nest. Most hatchlings from the southeasterne thought to spend up to 10-12 years associated with t

ethoc La

Vulnerable Life History Characteristics The loggerhead’s complex population structure and high rate of fidelity of nesting females to their natal

eaches has multiple implications for conservation and management (Bowen et al. 2005; Bowen et al. pacts at nesting beaches, such as habitat destruction, increased predation and other mortality

rature changes that affect sex ratios, will have long-term effects. Individual females ove between beaches in a single nesting season or between nesting years, but

ndicate that dispersal between subpopulations is rare. In addition, the multiple le expose each individual to diverse conditions, potentially on both sides

Population changes in one area may be the result of environmental changes lsewhere, making effective conservation and management a multi-nation

on-native predators are among the biggest problems. Degradation of coastal marine habitats occurs

nd boat traffic. Incidental take occurs as a result of commercial s

b1993). Imrates, as well as tempeare known to occasionally mgenetic differences imigratory stages of the life cycof the North Atlantic. e al responsibility. Human Impacts Degradation and loss of nesting habitat are major threats to loggerheads. Coastal development, beach armoring, beach raking and augmentation, beach front lighting, vehicles, and increased predation fromnthrough structural changes, pollution, afishing (longline, gill net, and trawling) and channel dredging. Global estimate for loggerheads taken abycatch of longline fishing for the year 2000 is 220,000 individuals, resulting in thousands of deaths (Lewison et al. 2004). Since 1995, an average of 47 stranded loggerheads were recovered each year in New Jersey, of which 25 % could be determined to have been affected by human activity. The most frequent human impact was propeller strikes (16%), followed by boat collisions (3.9%) and fisheries interactions (3.7%) (Schoelkopf, 2006). Conservation and Management Key conservation and management efforts include protecting nesting beaches, reducing beach front lighting, and using turtle excluding devices in fishing operations. Developing protective longline fishing gear that significantly reduces the number of leatherbacks taken as bycatch globally is critically needed. Over the long-term, rising sea levels from global climate change will threaten many nesting beaches. Theimpact will be especially severe where development immediately adjacen

t to the shoreline has eliminated potential higher nesting habitat.

References General information reported here without attribution was taken from the first three sources. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed March14, 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta). www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.html

. Accessed March 9, 2006. U.S.F.W.S. 2006. Loggerhead Sea Turtle Fact Sheet. Accessed March 3, 2006. www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/loggerhead-sea-turtle.htm. Bowen, B. W., J. C. Avise, J. I. Richardson, A. B. Meylan, D. Margaritoulis, and S. R. Hopkins-

eries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology

ing Center, Brigantine, NJ.

Murphy. 1993. Population structure of loggerhead turtles in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Conservation Biology 7(4): 834-844. Bowen, B. W., A. L. Bass, L. Soares, and R. J. Toonen. 2005. Conservation implications of complex population structure: Lessons from the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). Molecular Ecology 14: 2389–2402. Lewison, R.L., S.A. Freeman and L.B. Crowder. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fish

Letters. 7:221-231. Schoelkopf, R. 2006. Unpublished stranding data for 1995-2005. Marine Mammal Strand

act has worked with more than five hundred organizations The staff bring significant experience in stewardship,

sitioning, marketing, organizational development and resource ent. For more information, please call us at 303.223.4886 or visit us online at

Conservation Impact is dedicated to helping organizations achieve results towards conservation, environmental health and resource sustainability. We provide holistic,

comprehensive organizational development consulting to nonprofit organizations and public agencies.

Founded in 1996, Conservation Imp

nationwide and internationally. conservation science, nonprofit management and consulting, with degrees in biology, ecology,

environmental conservation, and public administration.

Conservation Impact’s services are focused and highly customized for each client, whether a multi-million dollar international organization or a small, all-volunteer group. We create useful

products for strategic podevelopm

www.conservationimpact.comT

Will Murray Shelli Bischoff-Turner Leni Wilsmann Alex Mitchell Jennifer Burstein

Documents

Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop€¦ · Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Workshop at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey on April 17-19, 2006. The